{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"Evaluation of fish guidance efficiency of submersible traveling screens and other modifications at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, 1994","Authors":"","Publication date":"1995","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-16-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0000034203"},"Pages":["SH153\n.Un5716\n1994\nEvaluation\nof Fish Guidance Efficiency\nof Submersible Traveling\nScreens and\nCZES\nOther Modifications\nat Bonneville Dam\nSecond Powerhouse,\nCoastal Zone and\nEstuarine Studies\n1994\nDivision\nNorthwest Fisheries\nby\nScience Center\nBruce H. Monk, Benjamin P. Sandford,\nand Douglas B. Dey\nNational Marine\nFisheries Service\nApril 1995\nSeattle, Washington","NWFSC094\nSH\n153\n,Un5716\n1994\nEVALUATION OF FISH GUIDANCE EFFICIENCY OF\nSUBMERSIBLE TRAVELING SCREENS\nAND OTHER MODIFICATIONS\nAT BONNEVILLE DAM SECOND POWERHOUSE, 1994\nby\nBruce H. Monk\nBenjamin P. Sandford\nand\nDouglas B. Dey\nReport of Research\nFunded by\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers\nPortland District\nDelivery Order E96940027\nand\nCoastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\n2725 Montlake Boulevard East\nSeattle, Washington 98112-2097\nApril 1995","CONTENTS\nPage\nINTRODUCTION\n1\nMETHODS AND MATERIALS\n4\nStatistical Analysis\n5\nRESULTS\n5\nFish Guidance Efficiency\n5\nDescaling\n9\nDISCUSSION\n11\nCONCLUSIONS\n12\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n13\nREFERENCES\n14\nAPPENDIX TABLES\n16","INTRODUCTION\nThe Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse was completed in 1982\nand the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) began evaluating\nfish guidance efficiency (FGE) at this facility in 1983. Initial\nmeasurements of FGE with standard-length submersible traveling\nscreens (STSs) were less than 25% for yearling chinook\n(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho salmon (0. kisutch) and\napproximately 33% for steelhead (0. mykiss). These guidance\nlevels were considerably lower than the expected design level of\ngreater than 70% for all species (Krcma et al. 1984)\nFrom 1984 to 1989, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and\nNMFS tested various design modifications to improve FGE at\nBonneville Dam Second Powerhouse. The results of this research\nindicated that modifications to increase flows above the STS and\nsmooth flows into and within the turbine intake could\nsubstantially increase FGE for yearling chinook salmon during the\nspring outmigration (Gessel et al. 1991) This was accomplished\nby lowering the STSs 0.8 m (30 in) and installing streamlined\ntrashracks and turbine intake extensions (TIEs) (Fig. 1) From\n1987 to 1989, FGE tests were conducted with these modifications\ninstalled in Units 11, 12, and 13. Mean FGE in Unit 12 (for 4-\nto 5-day test series) ranged from 51 to 74%. Although this FGE\ntesting was done at the south end of the powerhouse, with only\npartial powerhouse operation, NMFS recommended the installation\nof these modifications across the entire powerhouse.\nIn 1993, studies were conducted during the spring and summer\njuvenile salmonid outmigrations to evaluate FGE after the full","2\nFyke-net layout\nNorth Middle South\nGap nets\nGatewell\nBypass gallery\nTurbine\nintake\nOrifice\nextension\nClosure\nOperating gate\nnets\nVertical\nbarrier\nFyke\nscreen\nnets\nStreamlined\ntrashracks\nSubmersible\nGap net\ntraveling\nClosure net\nscreen\nFLOW\n+\nFyke nets\nCross section of turbine intake at Bonneville Dam\nFigure 1. .\nSecond Powerhouse, showing submersible traveling\nscreen, streamlined trashracks, turbine intake\nextension, fyke nets, fish bypass system, and\nassociated structures.","3\ninstallation of TIEs (in alternate slots) lowered STSs, and\nstreamlined trashracks at the second powerhouse. To fully\nevaluate the effects of these changes, tests were conducted in\nnorth, middle, and south turbine units (Units 17, 15, and 12,\nrespectively) under full (8 unit) and partial (4 and 6 unit)\npowerhouse operation. All three of these units were tested under\nfull powerhouse operation, but only the high priority units (12\nand 17) were tested under partial powerhouse operation. With 4,\n6, or 8 units in operation, mean FGES for yearling chinook salmon\nin Turbine Units 12, 15, and 17 were 47, 54, and 41%,\nrespectively. The highest mean FGE (54%) was obtained in Unit 15\nunder full powerhouse operation, while the lowest (34%) was in\nUnit 17, also under full powerhouse operation. With 4, 6, or 8\nturbine units in operation, FGE for all other species ranged from\n35 to 60%. Compared to past research results (Gessel et al.\n1987, 1988, 1989), FGE for all species at the second powerhouse\nwas lower than expected with the modifications in place.\nBecause of the need to establish and confirm accurate FGE\nvalues at this dam, a short series of FGE tests was conducted\nduring the 1994 spring outmigration to evaluate how\nrepresentative or anomalous the 1993 FGE results were. These\ntests were also conducted in Turbine Units 12, 15, and 17, but\nonly in the non-TIE slots (1993 tests had been conducted in\nadjacent TIE and non-TIE slots). Since the 1993 results did not\nindicate large differences between 4- and 6-unit operation, 4-\nunit tests were not conducted in 1994 and comparisons were made\nbetween 6- and 8-unit operation only.","4\nMETHODS AND MATERIALS\nProcedures and methods for FGE tests were similar to those\nused at Bonneville Dam in previous years (Gessel et al. 1989,\n1990; Monk et al. 1992). . Gatewell dip-net catches provided the\nnumber of guided fish; gap and fyke nets attached to the STS\nprovided the number of unguided fish (Fig. 1) e Fish guidance\nefficiency for each species was calculated by dividing the\ngatewell catch by the total number of fish of that species\npassing through the turbine intake during the test period.\nGW\nFGE =\nX\n100%\nGW + GN + 3 (FN)\nGW\n= gatewell catch\nGN = gap-net catch\nFN = fyke-net catch (1/3 sample)\nFish guidance efficiency tests were conducted from 10 to\n19 May and targeted yearling chinook salmon but data for other\nsalmonid species were also collected.\nIndividual tests lasted a minimum of 1 hour beginning at\n2000 h and ending between 2100 and 2300 h depending on numbers of\nguided fish (preferably 250 to 300 fish of the target species)\n.\nWhen mixed stocks of fish were passing the powerhouse, fewer\nnumbers of some species were recovered to limit the impact on the\nmost prevalent species.\nTo evaluate the effects of the guiding devices on the\njuvenile salmonids, all fish were examined for descaling and\ninjuries. Descaling was monitored using standard Fish\nTransportation Oversight Team fish descaling criteria (Ceballos\net al. 1992) .","5\nStatistical Analysis\nThe conditions tested provided two sets of comparisons which\nwere statistically analyzed. In one analysis, a 2-factor\nAnalysis of Variance (ANOVA) compared unit (12 or 17) and number\nof units in operation (6 or 8) In the other, a 1-factor ANOVA\ncompared Units 12, 15, and 17, with all 8 units in operation.\nFor both tests, means were compared using the Fisher's Protected\nLeast Significant Difference multiple comparison technique\n(Petersen 1985) . Significance was established at a = 0.05.\nConfidence intervals were determined for all means.\nRESULTS\nFish Guidance Efficiency\nThe results of individual replicates of FGE tests in Units\n12, 15, and 17 are presented in Appendix Table 1. The ANOVAs and\ndetectable differences (between units and between six- and\neight-unit powerhouse operation) are presented in Appendix\nTable 2 and daily descaling data in Appendix Table 3.\nMean FGE for yearling chinook salmon ranged from 32\n(Unit 17 with 6 units in operation) to 57% (Unit 15 with all\n8 units in operation) (Table 1) With Units 12 and 17 combined,\nthere was no significant difference in mean FGE between 6- and\n8-unit powerhouse operation. However, combining 6- and 8-unit\noperation, the mean FGE for Unit 12 was significantly higher than\nfor Unit 17 (49 vs. 34%) (Table 2) In a comparison of mean FGE\nbetween units with all 8 units in operation, mean FGE for","6\nTable 1.\nNumber of replicates, mean fish guidance efficiency (FGE)\nand 95% confidence intervals for each turbine unit at 2\ndifferent powerhouse operation conditions (6 and 8 units)\nfor all salmonids tested at Bonneville Dam Second\nPowerhouse, spring 1994. Within each species, a common\nletter indicates no significant difference between FGE\nvalues.\nTurbine unit\nUnits in\nand slot\noperation*\nReplicates FGE (%)\nYearling chinook salmon\n12A\n6\n5\n53\n(42-65) a\n12A\n8\n5\n44\n(33-55) a\n15B\n8\n5\n57\n(48-65) C\n17B\n6\n5\n32\n(21-43) b\n17B\n8\n5\n36\n(25-47) b\nSubyearling chinook salmon\n12A\n6\n5\n44\n(34-54) a\n12A\n8\n5\n53\n(42-64) a\n15B\n8\n5\n60\n(53-68) a\n17B\n6\n4\n44\n(33-55) a\n17B\n8\n5\n46\n(36-56) a\nCoho salmon\n12A\n6\n5\n65\n(56-74) a\n12A\n8\n5\n58\n(49-67) ab\n15B\n8\n5\n69\n(62-75) C\n17B\n6\n5\n41\n(33-50) b\n17B\n8\n5\n52\n(43-60) b\nSteelhead\n12A\n6\n5\n50\n(43-57) b\n12A\n8\n5\n38\n(31-45) ab\n15B\n8\n5\n49\n(44-55) b\n17B\n6\n5\n36\n(29-44) a\n17B\n8\n5\n39\n(32-47) a\nSockeye salmon\n12A\n6\n5\n39\n(28-50) a\n12A\n8\n5\n37\n(26-48) a\n15B\n8\n5\n49\n(39-58) a\n17B\n6\n5\n13\n(2-24) b\n17B\n8\n5\n29\n(18-40) ab\n*Unit 15 only tested with 8-unit operation.","7\nTable 2. Mean fish guidance efficiency (%) and standard error for\nall species in Turbine Units 12, 15, and 17 (non-TIE slots)\nwith 6 - and 8-unit operation combined at Bonneville Dam\nSecond Powerhouse, spring 1993 and 1994.\n12A\n15B\n17B\nSpecies\n1993\n1994\n1993\n1994\n1993\n1994\nYearling\nchinook\nsalmon\n49 (5)\n49 (5)\n54 (2)\n56 (3)\n37(5)\n34 (3)\nSubyearling\nchinook\nsalmon\n44 (8)\n49 (5)\n64 (3)\n60(9)\n51(4)\n45 (4)\nCoho\nsalmon\n63 (5)\n62 (4)\n63 (3)\n69 (9)\n47(4)\n47(5)\nSteelhead\n52 (5)\n44 (2)\n50 (5)\n50 (9)\n36(5)\n40 (3)\nSockeye\nsalmon\n41 (7)\n38 (4)\n35 (5)\n49 (6)\n*\n21 (4)\n*All tests excluded because of insufficient numbers of fish.","8\nyearling chinook salmon was significantly higher for Unit 15 than\nfor either Unit 12 or 17 (57 vs. 44 and 36%, respectively). With\n6 units in operation, mean FGE was significantly higher in\nUnit 12 (53%) than in Unit 17 (32%) .\nFor subyearling chinook salmon, mean FGE ranged from 44 to\n60% and there were no significant differences among units or\npowerhouse operation conditions (Table 1) Mean FGE was 49, 60,\nand 45% for Units 12, 15, and 17, respectively (Table 2) .\nFor coho salmon, mean FGE ranged from a low of 41% (Unit 17\nwith 6 units in operation) to a high of 69% (Unit 15 with 8 units\nin operation). There was significant interaction among units and\nthe number of units in operation (Table 1). Mean FGE for Unit 12\nwith 6 units in operation was significantly higher than for Unit\n17 with 6 units in operation; however, with 8 units in operation,\nthere was no significant difference between these units. As with\nyearling chinook salmon, with all 8 units in operation, mean FGE\nfor Unit 15 was significantly higher than for Units 12 or 17 (69\nvs. 58 and 52%, respectively). .\nFor steelhead, mean FGE ranged from 36 to 50%. As with coho\nsalmon, there was interaction among units and number of units in\noperation (Table 1). Mean FGE for Unit 12 was significantly\nhigher than for Unit 17 with 6 units operating, but there was no\nsignificant difference with all 8 units in operation. With all\n8 units in operation, mean FGE for Unit 15 was again higher than\nfor Unit 12 or 17 (50 vs. 38 and 39%, respectively). This\ndifference was not significant, although nearly so (P = 0.07)","9\nFor sockeye salmon (0. nerka) mean FGE ranged from 13 to\n49%, and, with all 8 units in operation, there was no significant\ndifference among Units 12, 15, or 17 (37, 49, and 29%,\nrespectively, Table 1) There was no interaction among units and\nnumber of units in operation, and average FGE for combined 6- and\n8-unit operation was significantly higher for Unit 12 than for\nUnit 17 (38 and 21%, respectively) (Table 2)\nDescaling\nSince 1983, when FGE studies were first conducted at the\nsecond powerhouse, descaling rates have generally been low (5 to\n8%) for all species except sockeye salmon. In 1994, however,\ndescaling rates for chinook salmon and steelhead were\nconsiderably higher than in 1993 (Table 3) Because of concern\nthat these high levels of descaling might be caused by the\nguidance systems, our descaling data were compared with descaling\ndata collected during the same time period at the second\npowerhouse by the Fish Passage Center's Smolt Monitoring Program.\nThe descaling values collected by the Smolt Monitoring Program,\nwhich to some degree reflect the effects of guidance devices and\nother bypass system components on fish condition, were much lower\nthan the values collected during 1994 FGE testing and were\ncomparable to most descaling data collected at the second\npowerhouse from 1983 to 1989 (both from smolt monitoring and FGE\nstudies.","10\nTable 3.\nTotal numbers and percent descaling for all salmonids\nexamined during fish guidance efficiency (FGE) tests at\nBonneville Dam Second Powerhouse, spring 1993 and 1994.\nIncluded are data from Smolt Monitoring (SM) Program,\nspring 1994.\n1993 (FGE)\n1994 (FGE)\n1994\n(SM) *\nSpecies\nNo.\nDesc. (%)\nNo.\nDesc. (%)\nNo.\nDesc. (%)\nYearling\nchinook\nsalmon\n9,486\n5.2\n2,219\n15.0\n1,383\n6.5\nSubyearling\nchinook\nsalmon\n1,220\n2.4\n830\n6.6\n218\n1.8\nCoho\nsalmon\n7,896\n3.0\n4,998\n5.5\n1,655\n3.1\nSteelhead\n2,445\n8.3\n1,050\n13.9\n415\n8.4\nSockeye\nsalmon\n1,167\n41.8\n1,320\n49.6\n210\n16.7\n*\nProvided by Fish Passage Center's smolt monitoring program.","11\nDISCUSSION\nBecause the 1993 FGE results at Bonneville Dam Second\nPowerhouse were lower than expected, it was hoped that a limited\nseries of FGE tests in 1994 would verify whether the 1993 data\nrepresented appropriate values upon which to base annual fish\npassage efficiency estimates. However, because of the inability\nto obtain a year-to-year variance with only 2 years' worth of\ndata (in the same turbine units and under the same powerhouse\nconditions), a statistical comparison between 1993 and 1994 was\nnot attempted.\nIn 1993 and 1994, for all species tested, the highest FGE\nvalues were obtained in Unit 15 and, for the most part, FGE\nvalues in Unit 12 were higher than in Unit 17. A 6-unit\noperation created the largest variation between years in Units 12\nand 17 for yearling chinook salmon. This may have been due to\nthe large daily variance in FGE in these outside units, which\nincreased with partial powerhouse operation. However, by\naveraging together six- and eight-unit operation, mean FGE values\nfor the three units were similar between years for all species\ntested (Table 2) .\nHigher FGE in Unit 15 was probably due to the fact that the\nflow in the middle of the powerhouse is more laminar than on\neither side. Even though the TIEs help straighten the flow\nacross the entire length of the powerhouse, large eddies and\nturbulence form on both sides of the powerhouse adjacent to\nUnits 12 and 17 when only 4 or 6 units are operating. Although\nthese eddies tend to recede at full powerhouse operation, they","12\nstill exist and apparently either pull fish away from the water\nsurface or disorient fish so that they seek greater depth.\nAlthough there was no apparent reason to suspect that our\ndipnetting or fish handling procedures caused increased descaling\nin 1994, this may have been the case. In tests at McNary Dam,\nMcComas et al. (1994) found that descaling averages of 7.8% for\nyearling chinook salmon, 3.0% for coho salmon, 4.0% for\nsteelhead, and 27.5% for sockeye salmon may have been caused by\ndipnetting and fish handling procedures alone. However, it is\ndifficult to understand how the same handling procedures used in\nprevious studies at Bonneville Dam could lead to a descaling\nincrease of this magnitude.\nCONCLUSIONS\n1) With 6- and 8-unit operation combined, mean FGE for yearling\nchinook salmon was significantly higher in Unit 12 (49%) than\nin Unit 17 (34%) .\n2) With 8-unit operation, FGE for yearling chinook salmon was\nsignificantly higher in Unit 15 (57%) than in Units 12 (44%)\nand 17 (36%) ; FGE was also significantly higher in Unit 12\nthan in Unit 17.\n3) With 6-unit operation, FGE for yearling chinook salmon was\nsignificantly higher in Unit 12 (53%) than in Unit 17 (32%) .\n4) For all species evaluated, FGE values were similar to 1993\nresults. In most cases, the highest values were obtained in\nUnit 15 with 8-unit operation and the lowest values in Unit 17\nwith 6-unit operation.","13\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\nWe express our appreciation to Virgil Goodpastor, Project\nEngineer at Bonneville Lock and Dam, Arthur Nault, Chief of\nMaintenance, and Edward Willits, Structures and Utility Foreman,\nfor their cooperation and suggestions. We also thank their\nrespective staffs for providing the expertise and assistance\nneeded to accomplish the work safely and successfully.\nWe also thank James Kuski, Project Biologist, and his staff,\nfor coordinating our work with project personnel, and the Chief\nof Operations, Darrel Hunt, and his staff for coordinating\nturbine unit startups and shutdowns for the respective tests.","14\nREFERENCES\nCeballos, J. R. , S. W. Pettit, and J. L. McKern. 1992. Fish\nTransportation Oversight Team Annual Report - FY 1991.\nTransport Operations on the Snake and Columbia Rivers. NOAA\nTechnical Memorandum NMFS F/NWR-31, 77 p. plus Appendix.\n(Available from Environmental and Technical Services\nDivision, 525 N.E. Oregon Street, Suite 500, Portland, OR\n97232-2737.)\nGessel, M. H. D. A. Brege, B. H. Monk, and J. G. Williams.\n1990. Continued studies to evaluate the juvenile bypass\nsystems at Bonneville Dam - 1989. Report to the U.S. Army\nCorps of Engineers, Delivery Order E8689095, 20 p. plus\nAppendices. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science\nCenter, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E. Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nGessel, M. H., L. G. Gilbreath, W. D. Muir, B. H. Monk, and\nR. F. Krcma. 1987. Evaluation of the juvenile salmonid\ncollection and bypass systems at Bonneville Dam - 1986.\nReport to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract\nDACW57-86-F-0270, 53 p. plus Appendices. (Available from\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E.,\nSeattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nGessel, M. H., B. H. Monk, D. A. Brege, and J. G. Williams.\n1989. Fish guidance efficiency studies at Bonneville Dam\nFirst and Second Powerhouses - 1988. Report to the U.S. Army\nCorps of Engineers, Delivery Order DACW57-87-F-0322 22 p.\nplus Appendices. (Available from Northwest Fisheries Science\nCenter, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nGessel, M. H., B. H. Monk, and J. G. Williams. 1988. Evaluation\nof the juvenile salmonid collection and bypass systems at\nBonneville Dam, 1987. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of\nEngineers, Contract DACW57-87-F-0322, 35 p. plus Appendices.\n(Available from Northwest Fisheries Science Center,\n2725 Montlake Blvd. E. Seattle, WA 98112-2097. )\nGessel, M. H. , J. G. Williams, D. A. Brege, and R. F. Krcma.\n1991. Juvenile salmon guidance at the Bonneville Dam Second\nPowerhouse, Columbia River, 1983-1989. N. Am. J. Fish.\nManage. 11:400-412.\nKrcma, R. F. M. H. Gessel, W. D. Muir, C. S. McCutcheon,\nL. G. Gilbreath, and B. H. Monk. 1984. Evaluation of the\njuvenile collection and bypass system at Bonneville Dam,\n1983. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract\nDACW57-83-F-0315, 56 p. plus Appendices. (Available from\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E.\nSeattle, WA 98112-2097.","15\nMcComas, R. L. B. P. Sandford, and D. B. Dey. 1994. Studies to\nevaluate the effectiveness of extended-length screens at\nMcNary Dam, 1993. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,\nContract E86910060, 25 p. plus Appendices. (Available from\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd E.\nSeattle, WA 98112-2097. )\nMonk, B. H. , G. E. Varney, and S. J. Grabowski. 1992.\nContinuing studies to evaluate and improve submersible\ntraveling screens for fish guidance at Bonneville Dam First\nPowerhouse, 1991. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,\nContract E96910012, 20 p. plus Appendix. (Available from\nNorthwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E.\nSeattle, WA 98112-2097.)\nMonk, B. H. , B. P. Sandford, and D. B. Dey. 1994. Evaluation of\nfish guidance efficiency of submersible traveling screens and\nother modifications at Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse,\n1993. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract\nE96930031, 26 p. plus Appendix. (Available from Northwest\nFisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd E. , Seattle, WA\n98112-2097.)\nPetersen, R. G. 1985. Design and analysis of experiments.\nMarcel Dekker, New York. 429 p.","16\nAPPENDIX TABLES","17\nAppendix Table 1. Numbers of fish collected in individual replicates of FGE tests\nin Turbine Units 12, 15, and 17 at Bonneville Dam Second\nPowerhouse, 1994 (SC = subyearling chinook, YC = yearling chinook,\nST = steelhead, CO = coho, and SO = sockeye)\nDate (test unit and slot) (number of units operating)\n10 May (12A) (6)\n10 May (17B) (6)\n11 May (12A) (8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC YC ST CO SO\nGatewell\n29\n769\n366\n1236\n103\n1\n189\n54\n253\n6\n3\n37\n47\n147\n24\nGap Net\n1\n2\n0\n11\n0\n0\n2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n1\n1\n2\n1\nClosure\n5\n251\n102\n173\n59\n0\n40\n17\n65\n11\n1\n12\n10\n34\n14\nFirst\n25\n10\n84\n111\n21\n3\n15\n0\n21\n3\n0\n3\n15\n9\n6\nSecond\n7\n237\n45\n344\n65\n2\n64\n29\n93\n20\n3\n34\n28\n59\n30\nThird\n2\n112\n21\n158\n41\n2\n59\n13\n32\n10\n1\n38\n23\n32\n29\nFourth\no\n57\n1\n84\n6\n0\n45\n15\n24\n6\n0\n15\n6\n12\n0\nFifth\n0\n1\n0\n9\n0\n0\n3\n3\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\nTotals\n69\n1,439\n619\n1,126\n295\n8\n417\n131\n488\n56\n8\n143\n130\n295\n104\nFGE (%)\n42\n53\n59\n58\n35\n13\n45\n41\n52\n11\n38\n26\n36\n50\n23\n11 May (15B) (8)\n11 May (17B) (8)\n12 May (12A) (6)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC YC ST CO SO\nGatewell\n19\n147\n52\n454\n27\n13\n41\n23\n116\n15\n19\n108\n99\n204\n98\nGap Net\n0\n2\n0\n2\n2\n2\n0\n0\n2\n0\n1\n1\n1\n2\n8\nClosure\n6\n46\n14\n97\n22\n9\n16\n5\n21\n3\n2\n21\n19\n21\n41\nFirst\n0\n12\n12\n12\n0\n3\n3\n0\n3\n0\n3\n9\n15\n24\n27\nSecond\n3\n27\n21\n32\n9\n4\n17\n5\n32\n7\n1\n54\n60\n62\n89\nThird\n0\n20\n11\n20\n6\n5\n17\n6\n14\n12\n5\n44\n36\n28\n65\nFourth\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n9\n3\n12\n0\n0\n33\n12\n9\n60\nFifth\n0\n6\n6\n3\n6\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n3\n3\n12\n3\n3\nTotals\n28\n260\n116\n620\n72\n36\n106\n42\n200\n37\n34 273 254 353 391\nFGE (%)\n68\n57\n45\n73\n38\n36\n39\n55\n58\n41\n56\n40\n39\n58\n25\n12 May (17B) (6)\n13 May (12A) (8)\n13 May (15B) (8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n28\n74\n66\n231\n32\n18\n106\n87\n152\n129\n59\n141\n19\n224\n62\nGap Net\n0\n3\n0\n1\n1\n0\n1\n1\n4\n3\n0\n2\n0\n3\n2\nClosure\n11\n47\n20\n93\n48\n1\n14\n13\n12\n23\n10\n52\n10\n68\n24\nFirst\n0\n27\n15\n30\n33\n12\n33\n27\n18\n45\n9\n18\n9\n15\n3\nSecond\n16\n90\n47\n89\n63\n3\n39\n49\n59\n97\n6\n26\n10\n33\n7\nThird\n3\n46\n25\n58\n84\n6\n40\n30\n26\n65\n2\n8\n3\n11\n10\nFourth\n3\n42\n12\n33\n51\n1\n24\n15\n12\n21\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\nFifth\n0\n0\n0\n6\n3\n0\n3\n0\n0\n6\n0\n3\n0\n0\n3\nTotals\n61\n329\n185\n541\n315\n41\n260\n222\n283\n269\n86 253 51 354 111\nFGE (%)\n46\n22\n36\n43\n10\n44\n41\n39\n54\n100\n69\n56\n37\n63\n56","18\nAppendix Table 1. Continued.\nDate (test unit and slot) (number of units operating)\n13 May (17B) (8)\n14 May (12A) (6)\n14 May (17B) (6)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n27\n58\n28\n113\n18\n40\n287\n104\n364\n211\n50\n102\n27\n84\n35\nGap Net\n1\n2\n0\n2\n1\n2\n2\n0\n1\n6\n0\n0\n0\n3\n2\nClosure\n14\n28\n9\n26\n26\n2\n5\n11\n16\n17\n16\n38\n18\n37\n35\nFirst\n3\n6\n6\n9\n15\n3\n15\n9\n6\n15\n12\n24\n6\n15\n6\nSecond\n3\n41\n30\n41\n42\n23\n52\n28\n23\n59\n29\n78\n23\n40\n70\nThird\n5\n38\n12\n24\n36\n9\n14\n19\n16\n26\n10\n61\n16\n43\n78\nFourth\n3\n15\n3\n12\n33\n6\n9\n6\n0\n18\n6\n24\n12\n30\n51\nFifth\n0\n6\n0\n0\n6\n0\n3\n3\no\n3\n6\n0\n0\n3\n3\nTotals\n56\n194\n88\n227\n177\n85\n387\n180\n426\n355\n129\n327\n102\n255\n280\nFGE (%)\n48\n30\n32\n50\n10\n47\n74\n58\n85\n59\n39\n31\n26\n33\n13\n15 May (12A) (8)\n15 May (15B)\n(8)\n15 May (17B) (8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n32\n142\n48\n114\n105\n42\n176\n27\n206\n68\n23\n64\n16\n60\n19\nGap Net\n1\n0\n0\n0\n4\n0\n4\n0\n0\n4\n1\n2\n0\n0\n0\nClosure\no\n5\n5\n6\n7\n16\n50\n13\n43\n39\n3\n26\n7\n10\n4\nFirst\n3\n15\n9\n9\n18\n6\n15\n0\n12\n21\n0\n9\n0\n0\n3\nSecond\n12\n52\n26\n38\n57\n11\n57\n6\n24\n36\n7\n36\n13\n16\n8\nThird\n3\n29\n18\n22\n48\n4\n27\n1\n14\n19\n6\n19\n8\n10\n18\nFourth\n0\n24\n21\n21\n33\n3\n6\n6\n0\n15\n6\n18\n0\n18\n6\nFifth\no\n3\n0\n1\n3\n0\n3\n0\n0\n3\no\n0\n3\n3\n0\nTotals\n51\n270\n127\n211\n275\n82\n338\n53\n299\n205\n46\n174\n47\n117\n58\nFGE (%)\n63\n53\n38\n54\n38\n51\n52\n51\n69\n33\n50\n37\n34\n51\n33\n16\nMay\n(12A)\n(6)\n16\nMay\n(17B)\n(6)\n17 May\n(12A)\n(8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n8\n233\n89\n495\n141\n25\n87\n28\n176\n31\n11\n68\n90\n284\n52\nGap Net\n1\n2\n0\n6\n10\n3\n3\n3\n5\n1\n0\n3\n2\n4\n5\nClosure\n11\n38\n24\n47\n39\n9\n61\n16\n48\n21\n1\n4\n15\n20\n9\nFirst\n0\n15\n24\n33\n21\n0\n21\n0\n45\n24\n0\n15\n24\n39\n15\nSecond\n7\n51\n34\n56\n79\n0\n65\n14\n37\n35\n9\n54\n66\n95\n52\nThird\n5\n19\n28\n35\n42\n7\n81\n20\n67\n65\n10\n20\n31\n54\n48\nFourth\n1\n24\n9\n21\n21\n3\n45\n9\n60\n36\n0\n12\n0\n15\n0\nFifth\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n18\n0\n12\n0\n0\n9\n3\n0\n3\nTotals\n33\n382\n208\n693\n356\n47\n381\n90\n450\n213\n31\n185\n231\n511\n184\nFGE (%)\n24\n61\n43\n71\n40\n53\n23\n31\n39\n15\n35\n37\n39\n56\n28","19\nAppendix Table 1. Continued.\nDate (test unit and slot) (number of units operating)\n17 May (15B) (8)\n17 May (17B) (8)\n18 May (12A) (8)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n60\n136\n34\n368\n57\n48\n50\n18\n100\n9\n39\n158\n65\n587\n125\nGap Net\n1\n0\n0\n2\n0\n2\n1\n1\n1\n0\n0\n2\n0\n16\n5\nClosure\n34\n47\n14\n73\n31\n18\n14\n5\n17\n2\n1\n15\n10\n41\n6\nFirst\n21\n3\n3\n21\n0\n12\n0\n3\n18\n0\n3\n12\n21\n42\n9\nSecond\n5\n34\n9\n44\n15\n8\n17\n6\n26\n4\n9\n35\n40\n59\n34\nThird\n3\n5\n7\n25\n3\n12\n25\n6\n24\n1\n4\n17\n25\n28\n28\nFourth\n0\n3\n0\n15\n0\n3\n6\n6\n15\n6\n0\n6\n6\n0\n0\nFifth\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n3\n3\n0\n0\n6\n3\n0\n0\nTotals\n127\n228\n67\n548\n106\n103\n116\n48\n204\n22\n56\n251\n170\n773\n207\nFGE (%)\n47\n60\n51\n67\n54\n47\n43\n38\n49\n41\n70\n63\n38\n76\n60\n18 May (15B) (8)\n18 May (17B) (8)\n19 May (12A) (6)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n75\n101\n16\n242\n29\n50\n30\n7\n116\n5\n64\n72\n64\n257\n77\nGap Net\n1\n1\n0\n1\n0\n1\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n8\n2\nClosure\n24\n45\n5\n65\n11\n26\n8\n1\n28\n1\n10\n15\n11\n22\n15\nFirst\n6\n6\n3\n9\n0\n3\n3\n3\n6\n0\n6\n9\n9\n30\n6\nSecond\n1\n9\n0\n9\n2\n15\n22\n4\n31\n5\n19\n37\n18\n100\n57\nThird\n6\n11\n1\n10\n1\n9\n16\n3\n24\n5\n26\n23\n16\n59\n39\nFourth\n0\n0\n0\n3\n3\n0\n9\n0\n24\n6\n9\n27\n9\n15\n29\nFifth\no\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n3\n0\n0\no\n0\no\no\no\n0\nTotals\n113\n173\n25\n339\n46\n104\n91\n18\n232\n22\n134\n183\n127\n491\n225\nFGE (%)\n66\n58\n64\n71\n63\n48\n33\n39\n50\n23\n48\n39\n50\n52\n34\n19 May (17B)\n(6)\nLocation\nSC\nYC\nST\nCO\nSO\nGatewell\n60\n39\n26\n111\n19\nGap Net\n4\n3\n1\n3\n1\nClosure\n14\n8\n3\n49\n12\nFirst\n12\n3\n1\n18\n6\nSecond\n24\n22\n10\n52\n39\nThird\n15\n27\n10\n25\n22\nFourth\n0\n3\n3\n15\n18\nFifth\n0\n0\n0\n0\n6\nTotals\n129\n105\n54\n273\n123\nFGE (%)\n47\n37\n48\n41\n1","20\nAppendix Table 2. ANOVAS, FGE means, mean comparisons, and 95%\nconfidence intervals for all species at\nBonneville Dam Second Powerhouse for Units 12,\n15, and 17 with 6 or 8 units in operation.\nYEARLING CHINOOK SALMON\nTwo factor ANOVA for FGE estimates in Units 12 and 17 with\n6\nand 8 units in operation.\nSource\ndf\nSS\nMS\nF\np\nUnit\n1\n1067.3\n1067.3\n7.82\n0.0129\nUnits on\n1\n33.5\n33.5\n0.25\n0.6319\nInteraction\n1\n252.8\n252.8\n1.85\n0.1923\nError\n16\n2182.5\n136.4\nTotal\n19\n3536.1\nCondition\nMean FGE (%)\n95% CI (%)\nDifference*\nUnit 12, 6 units\n53.5\n42.4 - 64.6\na\nUnit 12, 8 units\n43.8\n32.7 - 54.9\na\nUnit 17, 6 units\n31.8\n20.7 - 42.9\na\nUnit 17, 8 units\n36.3\n25.2 - 47.4\na\nANOVA for FGE estimates in Units 12, 15, and 17 with 8 units\nin operation.\nSource\ndf\nSS\nMS\nF\np\nUnit\n2\n1038.3\n519.1\n6.50\n0.0122\nError\n12\n958.0\n79.8\nTotal\n14\n1996.2\nUnit\nMean FGE (%)\n95% CI (%)\nDifference*\n12\n43.8\n35.1 - 52.5\na\n15\n56.5\n47.8 - 65.2\nb\n17\n36.3\n27.6 - 45.0\na","21\nAppendix Table 2. Continued.\nSUBYEARLING CHINOOK SALMON\nTwo factor ANOVA for FGE estimates in Units 12 and\n17 with 6 and 8 units in operation.\nSource\ndf\nSS\nMS\nF\np\nUnit\n1\n59.8\n59.8\n0.55\n0.4787\nUnits on\n1\n125.2\n125.2\n1.15\n0.3017\nInteraction\n1\n53.1\n53.1\n0.49\n0.5036\nError\n14\n1524.2\n108.9\nTotal\n17\n1745.2\nCondition\nMean FGE (%)\n95% CI (%)\nDifference*\nUnit 12, 6 units\n44.2\n34.1 - 54.2\na\nUnit 12, 8 units\n52.9\n41.7 - 64.1\na\nUnit 17, 6 units\n44.0\n32.8\n- 55.1\na\nUnit 17, 8 units\n45.8\n35.8 - 55.8\na\nANOVA for FGE estimates in Units 12, 15, and 17 with 8 units\nin operation.\nSource\ndf\nSS\nMS\nF\np\nUnit\n2\n522.8\n261.4\n2.21\n0.1559\nError\n11\n1300.4\n118.2\nTotal\n13\n1823.1\nUnit\nMean FGE (%)\n95% CI (%)\nDifference*\n12\n52.9\n44.5 - 61.4\na\n15\n60.3\n52.7 - 67.8\na\n17\n45.8\n38.2 - 53.4\na","22\nAppendix Table 2. Continued.\nCOHO SALMON\nTwo factor ANOVA for FGE estimates in Units 12 and\n17 with 6 and 8 units in operation.\nSource\ndf\nSS\nMS\nF\np\nUnit\n1\n1105.6\n1105.6\n12.75\n0.0025\nUnits on\n1\n11.1\n11.1\n0.13\n0.7289\nInteraction\n1\n377.6\n377.6\n4.36\n0.0532\nError\n16\n1387.0\n86.7\nTotal\n19\n2881.3\nCondition\nMean FGE (%)\n95% CI (%)\nDifference*\nUnit 12, 6 units\n65.0\n56.2 - 73.8\na\nUnit 12, 8 units\n57.8\n49.0 - 66.6\nab\nUnit 17, 6 units\n41.4\n32.6\n50.3\nC\n-\nUnit 17, 8 units\n51.6\n42.8 - 60.4\nbc\nANOVA for FGE estimates in Units 12, 15, and 17 with 8 units\nin operation.\nSource\ndf\nSS\nMS\nF\np\nUnit\n2\n757.2\n378.6\n8.41\n0.0052\nError\n12\n540.2\n45.0\nTotal\n14\n1297.5\nUnit\nMean FGE (%)\n95% CI (%)\nDifference*\n12\n57.8\n51.3 - 64.3\na\n15\n68.8\n62.3 - 75.3\nb\n17\n51.6\n45.1 - 58.1\na","23\nAppendix Table 2. Continued.\nSTEELHEAD\nTwo factor ANOVA for FGE estimates in Units .12 and\n17 with 6 and 8 units in operation.\nSource\ndf\nSS\nMS\nF\np\nUnit\n1\n180.6\n180.6\n3.08\n0.0982\nUnits on\n1\n97.2\n97.2\n1.66\n0.2159\nInteraction\n1\n265.7\n265.7\n4.54\n0.0490\nError\n16\n937.1\n58.6\nTotal\n19\n1480.6\nCondition\nMean FGE (%)\n95% CI (%)\nDifference*\nUnit 12, 6 units\n49.8\n42.6 - 57.1\nb\nUnit 12, 8 units\n38.1\n30.9\n- 45.4\na\nUnit 17, 6 units\n36.5\n29.3\n43.8\na\n-\nUnit 17, 8 units\n39.4\n32.1 - 46.7\na\nANOVA for FGE estimates in Units 12, 15, and 17 with 8 units\nin operation.\nSource\ndf\nSS\nMS\nF\np\nUnit\n2\n391.5\n195.6\n3.27\n0.0736\nError\n12\n718.7\n59.9\nTotal\n14\n1110.2\nUnit\nMean FGE (%)\n95% CI (%)\nDifference*\n12\n38.1\n32.8 - 43.5\na\n15\n49.5\n44.2 - 54.9\na\n17\n39.4\n34.1 - 44.7\na","24\nAppendix Table 2. Continued.\nSOCKEYE SALMON\nTwo factor ANOVA for FGE estimates in Units 12 and\n17 with 6 and 8 units in operation.\nSource\ndf\nSS\nMS\nF\np\nUnit\n1\n1381.1\n1381.1\n10.14\n0.0058\nUnits on\n1\n269.4\n269.4\n1.98\n0.1788\nInteraction\n1\n441.8\n441.8\n3.24\n0.0906\nError\n16\n2179.8\n136.2\nTotal\n19\n4272.1\nCondition\nMean FGE (%)\n95% CI (%)\nDifference*\nUnit 12, 6 units\n38.7\n27.6 - 49.8\na\nUnit 12, 8 units\n36.7\n25.6 - 47.7\na\nUnit 17, 6 units\n12.7\n1.6 - 23.7\na\nUnit 17, 8 units\n29.4\n18.4 - 40.5\na\nANOVA for FGE estimates in Units 12, 15, and 17 with 8 units\nin operation.\nSource\ndf\nSS\nMS\nF\np\nUnit\n2\n946.7\n473.4\n2.63\n0.1130\nError\n12\n2160.3\n180.0\nTotal\n14\n3107.0\nUnit\nMean FGE (%)\n95% CI (%)\nDifference*\n12\n36.6\n27.4 - 45.9\na\n15\n48.7\n39.4 - 57.9\na\n17\n29.4\n20.2 - 38.7\na\n*Common letter indicates no significant difference.","8.5\n19.2\n13.0\n15.1\n13.6\n25.3\n31.6\n10.7\n10.6\n66.7\n18.7\n18.7\n7.8\n3.5\n7.8\n5.9\n16.7\n6.1\n0.0\n0.0\n6.2\n7.7\n13.9\nPowerhouse, 1994. Units = the number of turbine units operating during\nSteelhead\n%\nsalmonids examined during FGE tests conducted at Bonneville Dam Second\nAppendix Table 3. Total numbers of fish in the gatewells and percent descaling for all\n47\n52\n23\n99\n66\n87\n19\n28\n104\n27\nNo.\n48\n16\n89\n28\n90\n34\n15\n65\n16\n0\n64\n26\n1,050\n4.8\n4.0\n6.0\n8.8\n6.5\n15.1\n14.7\n4.4\n10.7\n3.6\n15.8\n5.0\n5.4\n4.5\n2.1\n2.9\n0.0\n1.7\n2.1\n3.4\n5.4\n2.7\n5.5\n%\nCoho\n147\n454\n116\n204\n231\n152\n224\n113\n364\n84\n114\n60\n495\n176\n284\n368\n100\n587\n242\n116\n257\n111\nNo.\n4,998\n58.3\n40.7\n60.0\n64.2\n40.6\n60.4\n35.5\n22.2\n55.9\n8.6\n64.8\n52.6\n51.7\n58.1\n42.3\n45.6\n44.4\n38.4\n34.0\n60.0\n39.0\n50.0\n49.6\n%\nSockeye\nNo.\n24\n27\n15\n98\n32\n129\n62\n18\n211\n35\n105\n19\n141\n31\n52\n57\n9\n125\n29\n5\n77\n19\n1,320\nSubyearling\n0.0\n10.5\n7.7\n5.3\n0.0\n16.7\n6.7\n3.7\n22.5\n2.0\n25.0\n4.3\n62.5\n11.4\n9.0\n3.0\n4.1\n2.6\n1.3\n0.0\n3.1\n0.0\n6.6\nchinook\n%\nNo.\n3\n19\n13\n19\n28\n18\n59\n27\n40\n50\n32\n23\n8\n87\n11\n60\n45\n39\n75\n50\n64\n60\n830\n0.0\n16.3\n14.6\n13.0\n23.0\n16.0\n19.9\n15.5\n16.4\n18.6\n14.8\n10.9\n13.3\n12.0\n10.2\n13.2\n32.0\n8.8\n13.0\n11.6\n19.4\n7.7\n15.0\nYearling\n%\nchinook\nthe test.\nNo.\n37\n147\n41\n108\n74\n106\n141\n58\n287\n102\n142\n64\n233\n25\n68\n136\n50\n158\n101\n30\n72\n39\n2,219\nUnits\n8\n8\n8\n6\n6\n8\n8\n8\n6\n6\n8\n8\n6\n6\n6\n6\n6\n6\n6\n4\n4\n8\nTOTALS/MEANS\nDate\n5-11\n5-11\n5-11\n5-12\n5-12\n5-13\n5-13\n5-13\n5-14\n5-14\n5-15\n5-15\n5-16\n5-16\n5-17\n5-17\n5-17\n5-18\n5-18\n5-18\n5-19\n5-19\n12A\n12A\nTest\nslot\n15B\n17B\n12A\n17B\n15B\n17B\n12A\n17B\n12A\n17B\n12A\n17B\n12A\n15B\n17A\n12A\n15B\n17B\n12A\n17B"]}